In Irish Bank Resolution Corp Ltd (In Special Liquidation) v Camden Market Holdings Corp the Court of Appeal held that a term could not be implied into an agreement because, although it was linguistically consistent, it was substantively inconsistent with the express terms. In doing so, the court shed further light on the application of the "cardinal rule" that an implied term must not contradict any of the express terms of the contract.

Michael Wilson & Partners Limited v Sinclair and others [2017] EWCA Civ 3 demonstrates the interplay between arbitration and litigation, considering whether legal proceedings commenced by A against C are an abuse of the court's process where arbitration proceedings between A and B have decided the issue in question. The Court of Appeal held that a prior arbitration award can found an argument that subsequent litigation against a third party is an abuse of process, but will rarely do so. On the facts of this case, the claim was not considered to be an abuse of process.

The High Court held that a defendant's claim to privilege in respect of communications between employees and in-house counsel went too far. It ordered the defendant to provide a full list of each document over which the defendant asserted a claim to privilege, together with an explanation of the nature of the privileged claimed.

The defendants were able to make a contribution claim from a third party after settling a competition damages claim with the claimant, even though the third party had a limitation defence against the claimant, which could have extinguished both the defendant's and the third party's liability to the claimant.